The Lūth Case
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Constitutional Court
7 BVerfGE 198 (1958)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In September 20, 1950, Lūth (defendant), the then-Senator of Hamburg and Head of the State Press Office, gave an address at the opening German Film Week. In the address, he called for a boycott of the film works lacking morality and cited Veit Harlan as an example of one producing these works lacking character. Domnick-Film-Produktion (plaintiff), the production company associated with the director Veit Harlan, challenged Lūth to justify these charges of immorality. In response, Lüth issued an open letter, calling for the boycott of Harlan’s works and citing Harlan as a “committed exponent of the Nazis’ murderous purge of the Jews.” Domnick-Film-Produktion and Herzog-Film (plaintiff), the distributor of Harlan’s films in the Federal Republic of Germany, filed for and obtained an interlocutory injunction from the trial court in Hamburg. Lūth appealed, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The original injunction required Domnick-Film-Produktion and Herzog-Film to file a suit within a certain time frame, and Domnick-Film-Produktion and Herzog-Film filed the appropriate suit. The trial court in Hamburg ordered Lūth to refrain from telling theaters and the German public to boycott Harlan’s films. Lūth appealed, alleging the trial court’s judgment infringed upon his basic right to free expression of opinion under Article 5 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.